Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/What is a moot point
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
This is my first page and after scoring no points at all in the PLS it was suggested that I submit it for PeeReview. I hope I'm doing this the right way.
LordWolf 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
|Humour:||3||Hey, LordWolf! You've done this exactly the right way. Okay, let's see what we've got.
Current Usage: This section has a lot of words, but I only really see one joke: the bit about Cleopatra's feelings about wicker baskets becoming a moot point after she was killed. Really, this is the only thing here I can identify as a joke. The "round tuit" thing is basically just a pun or excuse to promote another article. The etymology sentence is confusing and not really an attempt at anything funny.
History: I think that this falls into the trap of a lot of beginners' articles - the idea that if a history is fictional and improbable, it is also funny. That's not the case. For a history to be funny, it usually needs to parody an actual history. Random dates are never, ever funny - if there's a date in an article, it really needs to be referencing an either real-world or famous fictional event. If I write something like "Candles were invented in 487 B.C. by Jude Law," that's not funny. It's just wrong. The only joke here that isn't centered around a random, invented history is the idea that a "moot point" is "no point at all" because a moot is a hornless moose. Unfortunately, that joke isn't very successful, at least not to me.
The Future: Again, this is a lot of words for one joke: that the War on Terror is so pointless that it could replace the word "moot." And, again, that's not a very strong joke.
I hate to say it, but other than a hint of a smile at the Cleopatra joke, I really didn't find this article funny.
|Concept:||3||The concept is probably the central problem with this article. Because few people actually do know the etymology of "moot point" off the tops of their heads, there isn't something concrete to satire. About all you can do is invent something (an animal, a tool, a verb, I don't know) called a moot and give it a fictional history. And that's a very difficult place to start from in an article, because, as I said, completely fictional histories are almost never funny - especially completely fictional histories of things that don't exist.|
|Prose and formatting:||2||The prose and formatting in this article need a ton of work. Let's talk about formatting first.
Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless there's some specific reason to break with Wikipedia's conventions (i.e., it makes the article funnier), an article should adhere to them.
First of all, article titles on Wikipedia are always nouns, not sentences. This really should exist at Moot point rather than "What is a moot point."
Second, Wikipedia articles start with a "lede". In the lede, the noun is put in bold text, defined, and then a brief summary of the article follows. For example, this article should probably start with a sentence like:
A moot point is an assertion that is irrelevant and not valid or worth talking about.
After that, type about two more paragraphs, and only then should you put in a section break.
Besides this, there are additional formatting problems with this article.
Familiarize yourself with UN:PS. They're a group of people who will run through your article and correct the spelling and usage errors. I didn't see any spelling errors, but there are a lot of run-on sentences in this article. There are also miscapitalized words and a good deal of missing punctuation.
But the larger problem with the prose is that it's too wordy. As I said before, the article has a tendency to use three or four sentences to tell a joke that could have been communicated more effectively with perhaps ten words. Keep an eye out for that.
|Images:||2||I'm not sure who this woman is, but there's nothing funny about either her picture or the caption. Also, why on earth is her name "Anne Elk (Miss)"? Is that a way of saying her name is Miss Anne Elk, i.e., she's unmarried? Or are we saying she's from Mississippi? Or something else? I would definitely not use this picture for this article - it just doesn't fit at all.|
|Final Score:||12.5||I'm sorry for the harsh review, but this article is not very good. And, honestly, I doubt it will ever be good - as I said before, I think it's broken in concept.
I see you've been here for about a month now. You've started two articles and added a little content to a few more. Well, welcome to Uncyclopedia!
It doesn't look like you've really talked a lot to other Uncyclopedians yet, so let me give you kind of the boilerplate advice we give to new users. First, read HTBFANJS - that's Uncyclopedia's brief guide to humor, and more importantly, to avoiding things that are not humorous.
Second, take some time to read articles at Uncyclopedia:Best of. Not only are they pretty funny, but they'll give you a chance to see what others around here find funny.
Third, consider that many of the best articles come out of writing what you know. If you have a hobby, or a subject you're interested in and know a lot about, write an article about it, and take a stab at some observational humor. No, it's not the only form of comedy, but it'll get you started. Find something you find absurd, and point it out. Poke fun at it.
Finally, if you want another Uncyclopedian to show you the ropes and help you get started, consider taking place in Uncyclopedia's adoption program. I don't really participate in that program myself, but leave a message at User_talk:YesTimeToEdit, and Yettie will get you fixed right up with someone.
|Reviewer:||22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)|